Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Connor, 161 P.3d 596.

123 citing documents.

State v. Matthews 428 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Matthews 428 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See State v. Connor , , 557, ¶ 6, , 601 (App. 2007).
Z.W. v. Foster 422 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Uptain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Uptain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 17 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2007)); (); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Because the trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in this decision.” ¶ 39
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To the extent [Scott] sets forth a constitutional claim in which he asserts that the information is necessary to his defense, however, we will conduct a de novo review.” ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
But “[e]vidence is unfairly prejudicial only when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007) (citation omitted); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 6 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 4 (App. 1999)).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–46, –56 (1997) (reviewing independently whether the probative value of prior acts is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice after the trial court failed to perform the required balancing test); ¶ 32, (stating the trial court’s decision to admit other-act evidence will be affirmed as long as it is supported by the facts before the court, unless a clear abuse of discretion appears).
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Because the trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in this decision.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Additionally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining if evidence is admissible because the court “is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 39, ( ¶ 21, ).
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Because the trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in this decision.” ¶ 39 (App. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Roper, 172 Ariz. at 238, 836 P.2d at 451 (citations omitted); -61, ¶ 21, -04 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).
State v. Hon. stephens/wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. stephens/wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), P.2d 445 (App. 1992), P.3d 596 (App. 2007)—that “some limited infringement on the victim’s rights may be required” upon consideration of the defendant’s due process right of access to evidence favorable to the defense and material to either guilt or punishment.
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Under Rule 404(b), “[e]vidence relevant for any purpose other than showing propensities to act in a certain way remains admissible.” ¶ 32 , (citation omitted).
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial only when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” ¶ 39, (citation omitted).
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 39, (citation omitted).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
403; ¶ 39, (“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial only when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Evidence relevant for any purpose other than showing propensities to act in a certain way remains admissible.” ¶ 32
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by